On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:24 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 18:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > > What I'm not clear on is why you've used a spinlock everywhere when only
> > > weak-memory thang CPUs are a problem. Why not have a weak-memory-protect
> > > macro that does does nada when the hardware already protects us? (i.e. a
> > > spinlock only for the hardware that needs it).
> >
> > Well, we could certainly consider that, if we had enough places where
> > there was a demonstrable benefit from it. I couldn't measure any real
> > slowdown from adding a spinlock in that sinval code, so I didn't propose
> > doing so at the time --- and I'm pretty dubious that this code is
> > sufficiently performance-critical to justify the work, either.
>
> OK, I'll put a spinlock around access to the head of the array.
v2 patch attached
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
